Chess and Religion

I agree with marco, i.e. in Europe, apart from Henry VIIIth England where Catholics were forced to reform, there was no ''catholic decline'', especially after the Trent council in the 1550's (the CounterReformation, which reacted to Protestant attacks) that greatly reinforced catholic power. The later censure on protestants, in the 17th and 18th centuries, motivated emigration to America, so it might be light be less clear to an American to hear that there was no Catholic decline during Reformation and Post-Reformation.

true :-)

batgirl, it is a shame that a serious question, clearly stated, is met by stupid answers about buggering and so forth. You the absolute best work around onb Chess histrory and I hope you continue. This may be pedestrian, but I think Eales may be a good source for this inquiry. Namely the context of the period, the role of the Church, and the primary sources he relies on would be particularly helpful. I would argue that chess was not completely dominated by clergy. In so far as the clergy was indistinguishable from the nobility in privilege, chess was dominated by the nobility not merely clergy. This of course is most obviously refelected in the greatest change in the game, the introduction of the Queen. This was not a clerical innovation, but a reflection of the increased power of female monarchs. And as chess was particularly popular in Spain at this time, this of course is reflective of the rise of Isabella in Spain who was Catholic. I argue, and I think this is based largely on Eales, that the reformation was not directly affected by the Reformation except in its later Puritanical manifestation (ie a ban on playing games, etc akin to some Muslim interpretations banning chess). Chess was impacted less by religion than by the nobility, taste (popularity shifted from Spain to Italy to France) and ultimately, and much later, by the end of feudal orders and the rise of a leisure class that took chess out of the castle into the parlor and eventually into the salons and coffeehouses (the Regence) of Paris, London and so on. I am interested in what else you may uncover.

Interesting marco, thanks.

It maybe curious to note that in countries that remained predominantly Catholic, Spain and Italy, chess became less dominant. Even in France, which led the chess world for a lcnetury or moree, became far less dominant in the 19th century.  In  countries such as Germany. Sweden, Switzerland and England, where Protestantism gained strong support, chess gradually improved. I'm don't think religion itself played any role in this, but it seems a curiosity.

I think the Reformation itself was the implosion you mention as some of the abuses by the Church ended as a direct result of the Reformation. 

While the Church may have grown stronger in areas where it held sway, it seems that the schism reduced it's previous almost total stranglehold in Europe and may have paved the way for later democratic ideas.

Now whether any of this have anything to do with chess, I have no idea.  But I think you're reading way too much into this.  I'm exporing ideas not formulating any thesis. In that respect, I do appreciate your input as my own knowledge of the history of Christian religions is rather basic to say the least. 

KingOswald, Eales book, which actually traces the popularity of chess thoughout the ages, has always been one of my favorites.

If you look at some of the benefactors of chess, Philip II, PhilipIII, Sebastian I, Giacomo Buoncompagno, the Duke of Urbino, the Prince of Bisignana, Prince Gesualdo, Pope Pius V they were noblemen or church leaders, or both... the idea of nobility seemed to bend almost seamlessly with the church in most of Europe.

Many of the noted players of that time were priests -Ruy Lopez, Girolamo Cascio, Salvatore Albino, Mariano Marano, Lorenzo Busnardo, Alfonso Ceron, Pietro Paolo Costanzo, Annibale Riganato.  Many of those who weren't priests seemed to be religious nonetheless.

I see your point that the change in chess was secular in nature. To me, the infusion of the church into both politics and the lives of the people during those times muddies the waters so much that making a distinction between the religious and the secular is very difficult. Even the rise of the chess Queen is generally accepted to be based upon Isabella, often refered to as Isabella the Catholic, who seems to have been an extension of the church.

I think you're right that the end of the feudal system (along with other things) help propel chess into common man's world.

Thanks batgirl. I figured it was nothing new for you really given your chess erudition but I thought it might offer some small insight. I do think you are entirely correct that chess history is either muddied, or just inextricably bound up in, religious history. As is everything else I suppose. I do appreciate your detailed response. I would be very surprised to find any direct link between the Reformation and chess history save for the loss of chess manuscripts in the dissolution of the monasteries. But it is difficult to prove a loss or absence although a reference may be found to a lost work in another surviving text.

(Marco:) "There is a correlation found by Max Weber beetween protestants and level of capitalism with savings, severe hard work, and few place for fun. But chess game is ambiguous : it develops so many qualities thant even severe Protestants should have accepted and encouraged (...)"

Indeed the Max Weber thesis about a solid correlation between the Protestant faith and values (individual responsibility, free will...) and their success in a capitalist world (here arguably represented by Chess) is what I thought batgirl was pointing to in her question. This is the only direct link I see that could be discussed, and that would be very interesting.

The topic of whether or not, or even how, religion has affected the game of chess has reminded me of experiences I had years ago.  

Specific, within that construct was finding a "assignable cause" which was pertinent to outcome.  I followed strict guidelines to narrow down and eliminate issues that had no negligible impact on the outcome, and could be eliminated from causing end result.

When done right, what was left was in fact the "assignable cause".  It was a methodical approach that simply purported that when non-related issues were eliminated, what's left can be safely assumed the only contributing factor(s).

Today I am wondering if the same protocols can be applied to the OP's curiosity, which I perceive to be a cause and effect issue.

It stands to reason that any issue can be addressed correctly or incorrectly, and that a degree of careful accuracy be applied before arriving at any conclusion. 

History, however, is written by the winners which is known to produce bias, which is the enemy of accuracy.  Categorizing and sorting through that would appear to be the task OP is endeavoring to undertake.  

"batgirl" your devotion to all things chess is truly admirable, I salute you.. 

thatChamUK,  I think you give me way too much credit.

But I do believe in approaching topics with an open mind as preconceptions can be blinders that prevent us from seeing the whole picture (or what passes for the whole picture).  That's one reason in this matter I appealed to other minds.... sometimes we're not even aware we wear thse blinders until someone else points it out.

marco : that is not exactly true, here I disagree a little :-)

What Luther reproached the catholic belief for was the correlation between good deeds and Paradise. A catholic goes to Paradise IF s/he follows the teachings of the church. Otherwise s/he goes to Hell. (or s/he has to buy her/his way to Paradise, the Indulgences you know well about).

Luther said : you are the one who chooses if you have Faith or not. If you have Faith, you will be graced. His religion is based on pure faith, and on Grace.

So a Catholic is just as responsible for going to Paradise as a protestant is for obtaining Grace. But the Catholic will expect to be redeemed even though his life on Earth was "bad" because the "catholic Christ" offers Redemption. Luther on the other hand does not forgive. His Christ is not forgetful/forgiving. His God is closer to a jewish Yaveh : wrathful.

And Luther says : the Catholic goes to Church and worships God, Christ and Saints only to be redeemed. It is a perverted religion. A religion based on calculation : I go to Church, perform good deeds, then I will be saved.

Then Weber says : Protestants are taught that they are entirely responsible for their actions. They don't expect mercifulness, redemption or indulgence. Therefore they work hard, knowing that no one will help. The hard-working, serious faced, constant Protestant is the best soldier in a capitalistic world where one should expect no help.

Montaigne's country, by the way, is mine too, I'm French ;-)

marco : I just looked her up, no I don't know her.

Carlsen lutherian ? no idea. He certainly is a realist and takes responsibility for his mistakes, which is very Lutherian... Which is entirely necessary, because imposed, in the game of chess. No way to ignore responsibility there! And that's where I see the relation between Protestantism and Chess :-)

ha ha ha !!! that's exactly where my avatar name comes from ! I had no idea she was the one on that radio program ! Thanks and good night :-)

@marcomarco13:  A catholic goes to Paradise IF s/he follows the teachings of the church. Otherwise s/he goes to Hell.

Not wishing to be controversial here, but this statement is quite incorrect.  Due in fact to the paradise being mentioned is in hell, it just isn't on the fire and brimstone side. That same paradise was emptied by Jesus upon his resurrection. Interpretation can be funny like that.  

I just realized the possibility of chess being used as a tool for diplomacy between the affairs of church and state, when monarchies ruled and the church wrestled with them over the conduct of the peoples, within the kindom. Perhaps similarly to kings or generals playing a game, as a way of not only matching wits, to avert a war, it could have also been used as a compass to see who's side G-d may be on in the matter ?

read baghavad gita, qu'aran , old testament etc and you will find that there is a holy war featured throughout our current spiritual instance... That war is truly based inside ourselves. Chess might be called a discipline of self control, a pranayama, a prayer, jihad...

That's a lot of ideas, batgirl! I'm way too ignorant about things like the rise of the middle class to make any comments about it. But since we traded ideas last time I saw your thread you certainly have had some intriguing responses from many other people!

Yes, Luther is considered very old-fashioned, even at his time. He lived at the time of Humanism but was not at all one himself. Humanism, ie the rebirth of classical pre-christian thinking, philosophy, aesthetics and values, is not at all his concern. Had it been, he would have fought it. Only religion is his concern.

VERY interesting, marco! These parallels are real food for thinking about permanent concepts accross times...

:-) Excellent...

This has not much to do anymore with batgirl's question, so maybe you should open a new thread about these yingyang patterns...

Being of both cultures, French and American, I understand your ''frenglish'' well, :-), I hope others do too, marco's remarks are filled with energy, free-thinking, and historically very correct !

:-))) allright, go ahead and peaufin your american :-)